Maryland churches could openly endorse candidates from the pulpit, under IRS proposal
The Rev. L.K. Floyd believes church leaders should have the liberty to speak to their congregations and support certain political candidates, especially when it comes to improving their communities.
Floyd, pastor at Heart Changers Baptist Church in Silver Spring, said Friday some people may believe that allowing that only helps evangelical Christians, pointing to white evangelicals like the late Rev. Jerry Falwell Sr. who established the Moral Majority in 1979 as a political organization pushing a 'pro-family' agenda.
'Not allowing the Black church, in particular, to be able to speak from the pulpit their political views, and also to be able to endorse their candidates and focus and support their agendas, I believe would be dangerous and problematic,' Floyd said. 'When there is something that is unjust … we must speak truth to power.'
Now, the Internal Revenue Service agrees.
In a proposed settlement filed last week, the IRS agreed with the National Religious Broadcasters that churches and other houses of worship should be allowed to formally endorse political candidate without endangering their nonprofit status under the tax code.
A U.S. District Court judge in Texas still has to approve the agreement, which would settle a lawsuit by two Texas churches, the Intercessors for America and the National Religious Broadcasters that challenged the 'Johnson Amendment' to the Internal Revenue Code. That 1954 amendment was introduced by then-Texas Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson, and said that nonprofit organizations can maintain tax exempt status if they refrain from political campaigning.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
There's no specific deadline for the judge to make a decision. A lawyer with the IRS didn't respond to an email for comment. A lawyer for the plaintiffs declined to comment Thursday.
The seven-page court filing states the amendment violates the plaintiffs' First and Fifth Amendment rights to freedom of speech and free exercise of religion, as well as their rights to equal protection under the law. It said merely speaking from the pulpit does not violate the Johnson Amendment rule against participating in or intervening in a political campaign.
'Bona fide communications internal to a house of worship, between the house of worship and its congregation, in connection with religious services, do neither of those things, any more than does a family discussion concerning candidates,' the proposed settlement says.
'Thus, communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted,' it says.
The settlement also acknowledged the IRS 'has not enforced the Johnson Amendment against houses of worship for speech concerning electoral politics in the context of worship services.'
University of Notre Dame law Professor Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer said in an interview Thursday that the IRS hasn't been enforcing the so-called Johnson amendment for at least the past 20 years.
'Many religious leaders have become bolder and bolder in inviting candidates to come speak at their church, calling them up to get praised, or saying other things that clearly indicate support of a candidate and not have the IRS open up an audit or threaten their types of status as a result,' said Hitoshi Mayer, whose areas of research include election and tax law and political activity by churches and other religious organizations.
'It gives churches that perhaps were hesitant to engage in this activity because they were worried about the IRS a green light to do so,' he said.
Even if the judge decides not to approve the settlement, and asks both parties to go back and try again, Hitoshi Mayer said the IRS acknowledges 'we are not going to enforce the Johnson amendment' against churches and other houses of worship. At least it wouldn't happen during the Trump administration, he said, because President Donald Trump (R) said during his first term in office he wanted to repeal the amendment.
Under shadow of deportation, Latinos find light at Hyattsville church
On Wednesday during a lunch with African leaders, Trump said, 'I love the fact that churches can endorse a political candidate. If somebody of faith wants to endorse, I think it's something that I'd like to hear. Those people were not allowed to speak up. Now they're allowed to speak up. I think it's terrific.'
Jeff Trimbath, president of the nonprofit Maryland Family Institute, called the IRS court filing 'a watershed moment.'
'For too long, many pastors have operated under the chilling belief that the law prevented them from equipping their congregations on how to think biblically about civic engagement, candidates, and public policy,' Trimbath said in a statement Tuesday. 'The IRS made it clear: there is no such prohibition. Let's pray this leads to pulpits that are once again unafraid to preach the whole counsel of God — including His truth for the public square.'
Not all religious groups are on board. Ashley Hildebrand, senior adviser with Catholics for Choice based in Washington, D.C., hopes the judge rejects the settlement, especially given what it could mean for the separation of church and state.
'If the church can endorse a political candidate, it is just one more way that priests could preach from the pulpit and further alienate people in the pews,' Hildebrand said Thursday.
'If we allow the pulpit to be weaponized or put into service of a political agenda more so than it already is, we are essentially allowing a very well-organized religious force to mobilize its base in pursuit of a partisan agenda,' she said. 'That is inherently dangerous.'
No matter what the judge decides, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops said it plans to maintain its stance of not endorsing or opposing political candidates.
'The IRS was addressing a specific case, and it doesn't change how the Catholic Church engages in public debate,' the conference's spokesperson Chieko Noguchi said in a statement Tuesday. 'The Church seeks to help Catholics form their conscience in the Gospel so they might discern which candidates and policies would advance the common good.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
Ireland's proposed boycott of Israeli businesses creates dangerous legal trap for American investors
Print Close By Anat Alon-Beck, Mark Goldfeder, Erielle Davidson Published July 16, 2025 Ireland has announced plans to pass a first-of-its-kind European law banning imports from Israeli businesses operating in Jerusalem and the West Bank. Like most Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) efforts, the bill is unlikely to inflict measurable economic harm on Israel. However, it poses a very real — and potentially devastating — threat to American businesses and investors. Under U.S. law, it is illegal for American companies to participate in or support foreign-government-backed boycotts of Israel. The Export Administration Regulations (enforced by the Department of Commerce's Office of Antiboycott Compliance) and Internal Revenue Code § 999 (administered by the IRS) prohibit exactly the kind of conduct Ireland's legislation seeks to compel. These statutes were enacted in response to the Arab League boycott and are grounded not only in economic self-interest but also in civil rights law: The boycotts of the Jewish State have always been about who Jews are—not what Israel does. More recent legislation, like the 2016 Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act, reaffirmed America's bipartisan commitment to combating BDS. TRUMP ADMIN SLAMS UK, CANADA, AUSTRALIA AND OTHERS WHO SANCTIONED ISRAELI OFFICIALS The penalties for violating U.S. anti-boycott laws can be steep, including civil fines, criminal prosecution, possible imprisonment, and the loss of export privileges. Any decision to alter operations in response to Ireland's law — particularly if it involves termination of Israeli partnerships or divestment — may constitute a material event triggering these laws and requiring disclosure to both shareholders and the SEC under existing risk factor or geopolitical reporting guidelines. Public companies should be especially mindful of how such changes are characterized in their filings to avoid accusations of misrepresentation or politically motivated discrimination. Aside from federal restrictions, the majority of U.S. states have adopted anti-BDS laws that bar companies from receiving state contracts if they boycott Israel. That means firms that comply with Ireland's law also risk contract termination, state debarment and possible enforcement actions from these states' attorneys general. The backlash faced by Unilever in 2021, after its subsidiary Ben & Jerry's sought to boycott parts of Israel, provides a concrete warning: multiple states divested pension funds, the company suffered reputational harm, and they ultimately had to walk back the decision under immense pressure from shareholders and lawsuits. If Ireland were seeking to chase American capital out of the country, it could not have devised a better way to do so. CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION What U.S. Companies Should Do Now American businesses with operations in Ireland — or even transactions that touch Irish jurisdiction — must now take proactive steps to protect themselves. First, as a threshold matter, any American company operating in Ireland should conduct a foreign law compliance audit to identify any decisions or actions that might be tied explicitly or implicitly to foreign legal pressure. Second, companies should educate stakeholders that anti-Israel divestment generates unwanted legal exposure, not safety, and ensure that internal directives do not imply or implement foreign boycott goals. SIGN UP FOR ANTISEMITISM EXPOSED NEWSLETTER Third, companies should implement a boycott response policy that would require all foreign law compliance actions to be reviewed by legal counsel. General counsel offices should track and report any foreign government requests to the Department of Commerce, as required. Fourth, American companies operating in Ireland ought to review their state contract exposure. If a company does business with certain states, particularly those with anti-BDS laws on the books, the company ought to ensure its compliance with anti-BDS contract clauses. Finally, if legal exposure cannot be mitigated, businesses may have to consider corporate restructuring, including reducing or ending operations in Ireland altogether; if the cost of doing business in Ireland now includes federal investigations, SEC scrutiny, and shareholder lawsuits, among other risks, companies may need to rethink their presence in the country. The bottom line is that American companies are not at risk because they do business with Israel. They're at risk if they stop doing business because a foreign government pressured them to do so. Anti-boycott law is not just about trade—it's about protecting American sovereignty, American investors, and American civil rights. And when it comes to obeying the law American companies must remember: America first. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Print Close URL
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Most Americans reject Trump's deportations. Here's why he won't change course
A new poll that has made big headlines shows Americans are rapidly turning against President Trump's ridiculous immigration crackdown. But unfortunately, I don't think that will make Trump change his mind. Before I tell you why I fear Trump will not abandon his anti-immigration offensive despite growing evidence that it hurts the U.S. economy and destroys the lives of millions of people, let's look at the numbers. According to a new Gallup poll, a record 79% of American adults now believe immigration is good for the country. Meanwhile, the percentage of Americans wanting to reduce immigration has dropped to 30% from 55% when the same Gallup poll was conducted in July last year. When it comes to support for Trump's plan to deport all undocumented immigrants, only 38% of Americans back that idea today, down from 47% last July. Obviously, many Americans fell for Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric during the 2024 presidential campaign, when he cherry-picked horrendous crimes by Salvadoran gangs to peddle the falsehood that most undocumented migrants are dangerous criminals. Now, growing numbers of Trump voters feel betrayed: They expected action against violent criminals, but are witnessing the pursuit of millions who are good people who do the work that most Americans would not want to do. Trump's deportations are hurting construction, agriculture, the hospitality industry and more, while triggering a humanitarian crisis. Thousands of undocumented mothers are being separated from children who were born and raised in America, and who, in some cases, have served in the U.S. Army. What's just as absurd: Trump's 'Big, Beautiful' law earmarks $170 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) — much more than the combined annual budgets of the FBI ($12 billion) and the CIA ($14 billion). This is no joke: The U.S. government will be spending far more to arrest undocumented gardeners, nannies and farm workers than to catch mass murderers or foreign terrorists. At the same time, the Trump administration is slashing tens of billions of dollars from government-funded research for cancer, Alzheimer's and other diseases, as well as America's foreign aid and pro-democracy diplomacy programs. Does any of this make sense? Yet no amount of logic is likely to sway Trump, because his political calculus is that mass deportations are the issue that most unites his base. At a time when Trump world is divided — over releasing the files of late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and U.S. aid for Ukraine— immigration remains the one front where his supporters stand firm. Trump also understands that in today's era of targeted political propaganda, you no longer need the support of 50% plus one of the people to win elections. An enthusiastic 35% can suffice if your campaign manages to confuse and suppress your opponents' sympathizers with disinformation to keep them from voting. In the 2024 elections, the Trump campaign succeeded in keeping many potential Democratic voters at home on Election Day by making a huge fuss about relatively minor issues and discrediting Democratic candidate Kamala Harris. It successfully got many Americans to feel outraged over transgender athletes — a controversy involving fewer than 10 cases among 500,000 college athletes — while shifting attention away from the Jan. 6 assault on democracy, mass shootings with automatic guns or efforts to combat climate change. According to the latest Gallup poll, the biggest shift on immigration comes from Republicans: 64% now say immigration is good for the country, up from 39% last year. Among voters of both parties, 38% now say they want immigration kept at its current level, while 26% say it should be increased. This poll should be great news, if only it would lead Trump to change course. But he won't. Keeping his anti-immigrant base united will remain his top priority, even if it unleashes economic havoc and tremendous human suffering. Don't miss the 'Oppenheimer Presenta' TV show on Sundays at 9 pm E.T. on CNN en Español. Blog:
Chicago Tribune
2 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Letters: Blame those who shoot the gun in killings, not the gun manufacturers
The op-ed 'Why not hold gun manufacturers accountable for mass shootings like River North tragedy?' by Anthony Douglas, Selwyn Rogers, Mallory Williams and Arne Duncan makes me wonder where their logic comes from. Did the gun shoot its victim? No. The gun was the tool a criminal used to cause harm. The weapon didn't fire itself. If we are going to hold gun manufacturers accountable, don't stop there. Automobile companies should be held to the same standards. The accident was the carmaker's fault. Go after all the big names. You trip and fall on a sidewalk? Let's hold the concrete company accountable. I cut my hand while preparing dinner? It's the knife manufacturer's fault. What happened to common sense? If for some reason anyone thinks holding the gun manufacturers accountable will decrease gun sales to criminals, think again. Most criminals don't go to the local gun shop to purchase legally. They deal in stolen weapons. These costs for medical services are more than excessive. Maybe we need better laws with higher accountability for the one possessing the gun? Strengthen the justice system and law enforcement to hold these criminals and careless gun owners accountable. A slap on the wrist for illegal gun possession is the problem. Irresponsible gun owners need education and laws requiring proper storage to keep guns out of children's Duncan and his co-authors seek to hold the makers of inanimate objects — gun manufacturers — 'accountable' for the River North massacre that left four dead and many more injured. But why not also blame auto manufacturers? The massacre was a drive-by shooting after all. And don't forget bullet-makers and steel plants and — well, anything that shifts the blame from the real hard to believe op-ed writers would ask: 'Why not hold gun manufacturers accountable for mass shootings?' It is hard to imagine a more inane question. Gun manufacturers do not pull the trigger, so they can't be charged. Only the shooters are chargeable. The Second Amendment says that 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' To win an anti-gun case in court, that rule must be out-argued, case by case. Maturation as a nation has not brought about that realization that the right to bear arms is no longer justified as it was at the outset. Our lawmakers would face an uphill battle canceling that right through congressional action. So we live with the anomaly, with hundreds dying annually from guns. Fear rules. To escape the reality of guns, individuals would have to move outside the the Fourth of July weekend, Chicago experienced its least deadly in six years. That's the headline for some, and it's progress to be proud of. But for Black and brown communities across Chicago, that narrative ignores the fact that it was a weekend still filled with trauma, heartbreak and loss. Three mass shootings occurred during the holiday week and weekend: in River North, Back of the Yards and Little Village. They all left Black and brown people dead or injured. There was no outpouring of public grief or demands for justice. These lives mattered, yet you'd hardly know it from the deafening silence. As a Black woman and the executive director of Illinois' largest gun violence prevention coalition, I carry both sorrow and deep frustration. Because time and again, I've watched our communities be forced to suffer through violence alone, while similar tragedies in whiter, more affluent neighborhoods spark national outrage. That's not to say Highland Park; Nashville, Tennessee; or Lewiston, Maine, didn't deserve mourning or attention — they did. But so do the families in Little Village. So do the teens and young adults in Back of the Yards. So do those celebrating an album release in River North. This country must confront the racial bias that decides whose lives matter after gun violence happens. Who do we grieve publicly? Whose stories do we amplify? Whose safety is prioritized? When the victims of gun violence are Black or brown, the outrage is muted, the urgency slower and the investment often missing. This disparity isn't just a media problem. It shows up in policy too. When the narrative suggests that violence is a normal feature of life in certain neighborhoods, it becomes easier for policymakers to ignore it. It becomes easier to underfund community-based solutions. It becomes easier to write off the trauma experienced by survivors, children and families simply trying to live their lives. Our communities are not asking for pity — we are demanding equity. Equity in how violence is covered. Equity in how survivors are supported. Equity in how lifesaving solutions are funded. This includes greater investment in community violence intervention programs that are already saving lives. These programs reduce shootings, interrupt cycles of retaliation and offer real alternatives where inequitable systems have failed. Until every child can play outside without fear, and every family can celebrate a holiday without mourning, we have more work to the aftermath of unspeakable tragedy in River North, the weight of grief permeates our lives, reminding us of our shared humanity. The recent massacre that took so many innocent lives serves is a harrowing reminder of the fragility of existence. Entire families have been shattered in an instant, and the echoes of their loss resonate deeply. Having experienced my own losses — my father taken by violence during the Intifada and a cousin lost to a tragic attack — I find myself mourning not just for those directly affected, but also for all of us who share in this collective sorrow. In these moments, it becomes clear that the struggles faced by different communities are interconnected. The pain of loss knows no boundaries, and it is essential that we come together to support one another. Our shared experiences of mourning and loss create a powerful opportunity for us to stand in solidarity against the cycles of hatred that seek to divide us. As a Jewish woman, I recognize the importance of acknowledging our histories and the struggles that have shaped our identities. There is a profound strength in unity, and now, more than ever, we must lift each other up. Together, we can challenge the narratives that perpetuate division and instead weave a story of compassion and mutual respect. Let us transform our grief into action, creating a tapestry of support that honors the memories of those we have lost. It is through these connections that we can challenge violence and work toward a future in which such tragedies are no longer a reality.I believe it's well known that Fourth of July is a favorite holiday of first responders. This past one was especially hard for those in Chicago who responded to a fire alarm at a home in Logan Square (think about all that heavy gear on a 90-plus-degree day) and arrived to find a 4-year-old stabbed to death and his 10- and 13-year-old siblings also stabbed. Nobody should have to walk in to find that carnage. I'm guessing some of the fire and police officials are parents themselves. How do you process and recuperate from that? The mother has been charged, and, sadly, mental illness is involved. Such a tragedy on what is this nation's birthday. And then there's the first responders in Texas, again on the Fourth of July weekend, dealing with children. The devastation is beyond comprehension and the heartbreak unimaginable. So please, let's keep all first responders in our thoughts and prayers and give thanks they are there to help us when we need it. On that note, a special shout-out to the LaGrange Fire Department, which we had to call twice this winter. You all are the best of the best, and we thank you!
